Tag: worst enemies

Eating Our Own

KevinLeave a comment

Some of y’all are a bit too quick on the trigger, I think.

A writer, with a blog, posts something egregiously stupid and insulting, severely damaging to our right to keep and bear arms. OK. He’s (supposedly) one of us. Even worse. The reaction? Boycott his sponsors, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Uh, no.

This was not Smith & Wesson selling us out to the Clinton administration. This was one guy. His actions were not sanctioned by either Outdoor Life or Remington. I imagine they were as blindsided by his stupidity as the rest of us.

Posted as a comment in the original thread comes this statement:

ALL – Jim Zumbo in NO WAY speaks for Remington! His opinions are his own. We at Remington take our 2nd Ammendment Rights extremely seriously and ourselves market and manufacturer a AR based 308 rifle. Remington Arms supports the lawful use of all firearms by thier owners in whatever legal manner they choose. We at Remington feel that it is the diversity of our tastes and uses of fireaems that should also be the binding element that assists us all in defending the rights granted to us by our fore fathers.
Rest assured that remington not only does not support jim’s view, we totally disagree! I have no explaination for his perspective.
I proudly own AR’s and support everyones right to do so!
What makes me sick is how quickly people on the internet have called to boycott Remington. All Jim said was he was hunting with our people! This is normal course in our industry. How else do people think we field test? with writers.
Remington has spent tens of millions of dollars to defend your rights and how quickly the thanks is threat and boycott! Please feel Free to post that remington does not agree with Zumbo in any way shape or form and we will assess our relationship with him accordingly.
Tommy Millner
CEO and President

He’s right. It’s not Remington’s fault. It’s not Outdoor Life’s fault. This was not a post that went through the editorial process – it’s a blog.

I have no doubt it was Zumbo’s honest opinion. We can pillory him for that to our heart’s content, but it isn’t Remington’s fault.

Is it OK to ask both parties to censure Zumbo? Yes. It’s also OK for them not too. THEN your conscience can be your guide. But to (as many have) write an angry letter to Remington telling them they’ve seen their last dollar from you? A bit premature, I think.

As I’ve said – we are our own worst enemies.

That Didn’t Take Long…

KevinLeave a comment

I’m unfamiliar with the MySpace page ostensibly run for or by the Brady Campaign, but they glommed on to Jim Zumbo’s article almost as rapidly as the gun community did:

Even Remington’s top gun writer agrees on Assault Weapons

With important writers such as this on our side, it is clear that we have a cultural imperative to remove dangerous terrorist rifles from our streets, and our woods.

(Emphasis mine.) They then go on to reproduce the post in its entirety with this supplement:

PS from the Brady Campaign:

We’ve read his apology. Stop copying and pasting it. If we wanted to post it, it would have been included already. Thanks to a few individuals who attempted to spam-post it, comments are now moderated for this blog post. We will still post comments from all viewpoints, as we respect and cherish the first amendment, but you have only those who refused to respect our requests to thank when you have to wait for your comment to be approved.

He apologized? I’ve got to see if I can find that. In comments, the “BradyCampaign” insists:

His statement is obviously a forced and insincere retraction brought about by the financial pressure of the Gun Lobby. One only needs to observe the comments on his apology blog post to see how most gun owners do not agree with it.

Right. The gun lobby. That’d be the couple thousand of us who have written scathing rebukes and insisted A) that we would not subscribe to Outdoor Life, and B) not buy products from sponsors of Zumbo. That “lobby.”

You see, it’s only a “grass-roots movement” if it’s fully funded by George Soros and has a paid administrative staff.

P.S.: He did apologize:

I was wrong, BIG TIME

Someone once said that to err is human. I just erred, and made without question, the biggest blunder in my 42 years of writing hunting articles.

My blog inflamed legions of people I love most….. hunters and shooters. Obviously, when I wrote that blog, I activated my mouth before engaging my brain.

Let me explain the circumstances surrounding that blog. I was hunting coyotes, and after the hunt was over and being beat up by 60 mph winds all day, I was discussing hunting with one of the young guides. I was tired and exhausted, and I should have gone to bed early. When the guide told me that there was a “huge” following of hunters who use AR 15’s and similar weapons to hunt prairies dogs, I was amazed. At that point I wrote the blog, and never thought it through.

Now then, you might not believe what I have to say, but I hope you do. How is it that Zumbo, who has been hunting for more than 50 years, is totally ignorant about these types of guns. I don’t know. I shot one once at a target last year, and thought it was cool, but I never considered using one for hunting. I had absolutely no idea how vast the numbers of folks are who use them.

I never intended to be devisive, and I certainly believe in United we Stand, Divided we Fall. I’ve been an NRA member for 40 years, have attended 8 national NRA conventions in the last 10 years, and I’m an advisory board member for the United States Sportsmen’s Alliance which actively fights anti-hunters and animal rights groups for hunter’s rights.

What really bothers me are some of the unpatriotic comments leveled at me. I fly the flag 365 days a year in my front yard. Last year, through an essay contest, I hosted a soldier wounded in Iraq to a free hunt in Botswana. This year, through another essay contest, I’m taking two more soldiers on a free moose and elk hunt.

When I started blogging, I was told to write my thoughts, expressing my own opinion. The offensive blog I wrote was MY opinion, and no one else’s. None of the companies that I deal with share that opinion, nor were they aware of what I had written until this firestorm started.

Believe it or not, I’m your best friend if you’re a hunter or shooter, though it might not seem that way. I simply screwed up. And, to show that I’m sincere about this, I just talked to Ted Nugent, who everyone knows, and is a Board member of the NRA. Ted is extremely active with charities concerning our wounded military, and though he’s known as a bowhunter, Ted has no problem with AR 15’s and similar firearms. My sincerity stems from the fact that Ted and I are planning a hunt using AR 15’s. I intend to learn all I can about them, and again, I’m sorry for inserting my foot in my mouth.

No, Jim, you expressed your true opinion.

The question remains, though, if you’ll educate yourself enough to alter that opinion.

“I had absolutely no idea how vast the numbers of folks are who use them.” That was obvious. “I never intended to be devisive, and I certainly believe in United we Stand, Divided we Fall. I’ve been an NRA member for 40 years, have attended 8 national NRA conventions in the last 10 years, and I’m an advisory board member for the United States Sportsmen’s Alliance which actively fights anti-hunters and animal rights groups for hunter’s rights.” Have you done anything to protect shooting ranges (for reasons other than sight-in weekend for the Fudds?) Fought any “assault weapon” legislation? I sincerely doubt it.

“Ted (Nugent) and I are planning a hunt using AR 15’s. I intend to learn all I can about them, and again, I’m sorry for inserting my foot in my mouth.” That’s more like it.

Blogging is an off-the-cuff thing. People can say things that they later regret, but if you’re a high-profile “name” in the community, the falls are a lot longer, and the landings a lot rougher.

ETA: Best comment from the new thread:

Coyote hunting trip – $1750.00
Single shot rifle – $300
Six-pack of beer after the hunt – $4.50
Drunken posting revealing your true feelings – Priceless

See that little light flashing on your dashboard? That’s the “Need New Job” signal.

Apology not accepted. You called me, a combat vet and proud gun owner, a terrorist.

Posted by: J.T. | February 18, 2007 at 04:31 PM

Let me check… Uh, yeah, he did. Only two corrections: I’d imagine one of Jimbo’s single-shots would price out at closer to $3k than $300, and I’m thinking single-malt rather than beer.

Elmer Fudds: Our Own Worst Enemies

KevinLeave a comment

Exhibit A: Jim Zumbo; professional hunter, author, writer for Outdoor Life, TV personality on the Outdoor Channel, and (therefore) a spokesman for the good “gun culture.”

With spokesmen like these, who needs enemies?

Old Jimbo has written an op-ed at the Outdoor Channel’s “News Wire” site. Let us fisk:

Assault Rifles For Hunters?

As I write this, I’m hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We’re testing Remington’s brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.

I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.

It’s good to admit you’re clueless, but now you’re going to lecture us as an “expert” on the topic, aren’t you?

I call them “assault” rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them “terrorist” rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are “tackdrivers.”

Translation: These rifles aren’t pretty, wood-stocked & blued. Therefore they’re eeeeeevil! Don’t we get enough of this from the Brady-Bunch and their ilk? Funny, I call them “Homeland defense rifles” myself. “Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.” (“A sword is never a killer, it’s a tool in the killer’s hands”) – Lucius Annaeus Seneca.

Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern.

What about the millions of AMERICAN owners (like me) who own them? Don’t want to be “lumped in” with us, either? Note to Zumbo: We don’t care for your opinion.

I’ve always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don’t use assault rifles.

No, you use “long-range sniper rifles.” Comfortable with that statement?

We’ve always been proud of our “sporting firearms.”

Ah, yes. “Sporting firearms.” That would be the 1968 Gun Control Act that proclaimed that only firearms of, well, let the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership explain it (risking invocation Godwin’s Law, but read on):

The “Gun Control Act” of 1968 (GCA) permits the importation of firearms that are “of a type … generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.” 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3). The Nazi Weapons Law (18 March 1938) forbade importation of weapons under substantially the same test: “It is forbidden to manufacture … and to import: Firearms which fold-down, break-down, are collapsible, or are speedily dismantled — beyond the common limits of hunting and sporting activities — …” Id., § 25(1) (translated in full in “Gun Control:” Gateway to Tyranny 60-61, 90 (1992) (emphasis added). The Nazi Weapons Law, and the enforcing regulations, carved the “sporting use” exception also where they permitted licensed persons to carry “firearms, designed for — and usually used for — the hunting of fair game.” Nazi Weapons Law, § 21; Implementing Regulations (19 March 1938), § 32 (in Gateway to Tyranny, at 88, 102)(emphasis added).

The GCA also purports to vest the power in the Secretary of the Treasury to determine whether a firearm has a “sporting purpose.” 18 U.S.C. § 925(d). The Nazi Weapons Law vested the power to decide the fitness of weapons (and their owners) in the unelected bureaucracy and the Nazi courts. Nazi Weapons Law, §§ 15, 25, 26. Germany’s constitution did not restrain its government from destroying fundamental rights. See Miller, Nazi Justiz: Law of the Holocaust 44-45 (1996). By contrast, the U.S. Constitution expressly restrains the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. U.S. Const. Amend II. BATF regulations that prevent the importation of firearms violate the Second Amendment by infringing on this right.

BATF regulations, which distinguish between firearms based on whether they are for “sporting purposes,” must be arbitrary and capricious. Such regulations far exceed the power which the Founders’ Constitution delegated to the federal government. See, e.g., The Federalist Papers, Nos. 41 & 45. What is a “sporting purpose” is wholly a matter of personal opinion, and surely not a matter for an unelected federal agency to decide. Indeed, the Second Amendment expressly forbids the government from making such a decision. To enshrine an agency’s mere opinion into law is to make arbitrary law; such arbitrary power is the handmaiden of despotism. See Hayek, The Road to Serfdom 68-69, 71, 73-74 (Chicago Press: 1976 ed.).

(Emphasis mine.) It just so happens that I’m reading Hayek’s Road to Serfdom right now. Perhaps Mr. Zumbo ought to pick up a copy, since he’s taken it upon himself to define what is and what isn’t a “sporting use.”

This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don’t need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.

How about this, Jim? How about we educate the public (and other Elmer Fudds like you) about semi-automatic rifles? And how about you break your damned fingers for ever typing the word “BAN” in relationship to firearms you goddamned gun-bigot? You’ve just given ammunition (no pun intended) to our opponents, and that has me “really concerned.”

There are comments at the bottom of the article. Other commentary at AR15.com (natch), at Shooting the Messenger, The War on Guns (also natch), and The Unforgiving Minute. That’s all Technorati has found links for right now, but I’d say the sentiment is running about 90% against Mr. Zumbo.

Perhaps he should consider his audience before shoving his word-processor into his mouth.

Whoops! Tam unloads on Mr. Zumbo as well.

I don’t think Jimbo knows how big a can of whoopass he dumped on himself.

ETA: My favorite comment at the piece so far:

Jim is entitled to his opinion, but that is a huge cup of stupid.

Way to fight for someone who like things that you don’t.

We are our own worst enemy.

Posted by: GeorgeInNePa | February 17, 2007 at 09:20 PM

Oscar Poppa also comments, and links to several other bloggers who have posts up on the topic.